human rights domestic workers

8/17/2019 Human Rights Domestic Workers

1/15

Page 1

Industrial Law Journal/2006, Volume 35/Issue 4, December/Articles/Servitude and Forced Labour in the 21stCentury: The Human Rights of Domestic Workers - ILJ 2006 35 (395)

Industrial Law Journal

ILJ 2006 35 (395)

1 December 2006

Servitude and Forced Labour in the 21st Century: The Human Rights ofDomestic Workers1

Human Rights of Domestic Workers

Virginia Mantouvalou2

Lecturer in Law, University of Leicester, email: [email protected]. © 2007 Industrial Law Society

Abstract Organisations and scholars have recently drawn attention to what they call a modern form of slav-ery, 'domestic slavery'. Domestic workers in Europe and elsewhere live and work in appalling conditions andare vulnerable to abuse. This article describes the problem, presents the relevant legal instruments andanalyses a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, Siliadin v France, where France was found inbreach of the prohibition of slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour under the European Conventionon Human Rights. The paper examines the growing interaction between international labour law and interna-tional human rights law. It argues that the decision in Siliadin and its legal implications constitute a positivefirst step towards addressing the problem of the coercion and vulnerability of migrant domestic workers.

TRADE INDUSTRY AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

1. Introduction

The terms forced labour, slavery and servitude sound obsolete in 21st century Europe. Their contemporaryrelevance first brings Myanmar to one's mind,

3 and then various other developing countries, where exploita-

tive labour practices have been publicised to an extent.4 Most would assume that grave abuse in labour rela-

tions ended in Europe decades ago and that violations of labour rights nowadays may only involve more sub-tle aspects of freedom of association and working conditions. Is this assumption true, however? Is slavery,servitude, forced or compulsory labour relevant in 21st century Europe? Are there instances of extremeabuse in labour relations in the UK, France, Italy or other countries that are generally considered to be para-digmatic in the protection of human rights at global level?

2. The problem of domestic labour

'Slavery is not a horror safely consigned in the past', it was recently argued in an influential study on newforms of slavery in Thailand, Mauritania, Brazil, Pakistan and India. The story of Seba, though, a youngwoman from Mali, which introduces the study, does not come from one of these developing countries, butfrom Paris. 'Every day I started work at 7am and finished at about 11pm,' Seba said. 'I never had a day off ...One day I told [my mistress] that I wanted to go to school. She replied that she had not brought me to Franceto go to school but to take care of her children ... I slept on the floor in one of the children's bedrooms; myfood was their leftovers ... She often beat me. She would slap me all the time. She beat me with the broom,


2/15

with kitchen tools, or whipped me with electric cable. Sometimes I would bleed; I still have marks on my body...'

5

Seba's example is not unique in developed countries. In Paris there are around 3,000 domestic workers, whoface similar living and working conditions. London, Zurich, Athens, Barcelona are only a few of the other cit-ies where such phenomena are far from isolated, as numerous studies and reports reveal.

6 According to

Kalayaan, a non-governmental organisation that campaigns for the rights of migrant domestic workers in theUK, 84% of domestic workers have suffered psychological violence, 54% have been locked up, 38% havebeen beaten, and 10% sexually abused.

7 Exploitation of domestic workers, moreover, is not only a European

phenomenon, when it comes to developed counties. The NGO Human Rights Watch in its Report 'Hidden inthe Home: Abuse of Domestic Workers with Special Visas in the United States' revealed the ugly face of do-mestic labour in the US.

8

What has been the response of international governmental organisations to the widespread, as it appears,phenomenon of the appalling working conditions in private households in general and in Europe in particu-lar? The situation has attracted attention and has given rise to calls for regulation.

9 As early as 1965, the In-

ternational Labour Organisation (ILO) recognised the particularity of domestic labour and adopted a Resolu-tion on the Condition of Employment of Domestic Workers.

10 From research conducted following the adop-

tion of the resolution, it emerged that domestic workers are 'overworked, underpaid and underprotected'.11

The ILO Study entitled 'Making Domestic Work Visible: The Case for Specific Regulation' identified the mainfeatures of domestic labour, which can be summarised as follows:12 first, most domestic workers are women,second, most of the times they are migrants and, third, they usually work in private households and have tolive with their employer. Recently, and following the adoption of the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Prin-ciples and Rights at Work, the Director General of the ILO issued two Reports, in accordance with the Decla-ration's Follow-Up mechanism. In the 2001 Global Report 'Stopping Forced Labour'

13 and in the 2005 Report

'A Global Alliance Against Forced Labour'14

special attention was paid to domestic work. The 2001 Reportidentified domestic labour as one of the main instances of forced labour today,

15 and the 2005 Report the

Director General dealt specifically with migrant workers and domestic work. 'Domestic workers', the Reportexplained, 'are especially vulnerable to forced labour because of the unprotected nature of their work and thehighly personalised relationship between the worker and the employer. Domestic work takes place in the pri-vate household, which is typically excluded from labour market regulations ... Migrant domestic workers', itwent on to say, 'are in a particularly precarious position because of their insecure legal status in the hostcountry.'

16 As for women, the Report recognised, taking up this kind of employment is the only option that

they have in order to escape poverty. Employers take advantage of this situation and of the fact that domes-tic workers are most often not unionised.

Human rights instruments, both at global and at regional level, prohibit slavery and servitude, forced andcompulsory labour, and various bodies have paid special attention to domestic labour. In the context of theUnited Nations, Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits slavery and servitude , whilea further prohibition of forced and compulsory labour is to be found in Article 8 of the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights. The 1926 Slavery Convention makes no specific reference to forced labour, butrecently child domestic labour was identified as one of the areas where slavery-like practices persist,

17 while

the UN Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery expressed the will to give priority to domestic la-bour.

18 Accordingly in many of the Working Group's activities the problems that arise in domestic work were

highlighted.19

Finally, the ILO set up a Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour.20

In the contextof the Special Action Programme, attention has been paid to domestic labour.

21

The last few years, domestic labour has also attracted the attention of organs of the Council of Europe. In2001 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe urged Governments to deal effectively with what itcalled a new form of slavery, domestic slavery, and expressed regret that none of the European countriesmakes domestic slavery a criminal offence.

22 'The Parliamentary Assembly is appalled that slavery continues

to exist in Europe in the 21st century', it was more recently reaffirmed.23

Although slavery was abolishedmore than 150 years ago, 'thousands of persons are still held like slaves in Europe ... [They] are forced towork (through mental or physical threat) with no or little financial reward, are physically constrained or haveother restrictions placed on their freedom of movement and are treated in a degrading and inhumane way', itwas added. It is the duty of the Council of Europe to be in the forefront in dealing with this situation, the Par-liamentary Assembly concluded, and made specific recommendations to member states.


3/15

3. Domestic labour and international labour standards

The unparalleled vulnerability of domestic workers and their abuse is a widespread phenomenon in France

and worldwide. A number of studies put in question the supposed high level of protection of workers' rights inEurope and other developed countries, and confirm that reality is much harsher and more complex than onemight initially hope. Are there any international labour standards that may regulate domestic labour? Can oneidentify such standards at international level, in the context of the ILO, and at regional level, in Europe, wherethe problem recently raised special concerns?

Numerous ILO Conventions and Recommendations may be of relevance to the regulation of domesticwork.

24 The present section will present the ILO's main human rights conventions, namely the child labour,

forced labour, freedom of association and the non-discrimination instruments. Key documents on forced la-bour are the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 (No 29), which defines forced or compulsory labour as 'allwork or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the saidperson has not offered himself voluntarily',

25 requiring States to punish forced labour as a criminal offence,

26

and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention of 1957 (No 105). When it comes to child labour, the 1973Minimum Age Convention (No 138) and Recommendation No 146 apply to child domestic workers, but al-

lows the exclusion of certain categories of child workers.27

The 1999 Worst Forms of Child Labour Conven-tion (No 182) and Recommendation No. 190 identify forced labour as one of the worst forms of child labour.

28

Turning to freedom of association, both the 1948 Freedom of Association Convention (No 87) and the 1949Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No 98) are applicable to domestic workers. Finally,regarding the prohibition of discrimination, the 1951 Equal Remuneration Convention (No 100) and Recom-mendation No 90, the 1958 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (No 111), and Rec-ommendation No 111 and the 1981 Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention (No 156) and Recom-mendation No 165 are also applicable to domestic labour.

At regional level, the European Social Charter (ESC), counterpart of the European Convention on HumanRights in the area of social and labour rights, in its Article 1 Paragraph 2 on the right to work, states that Con-tracting Parties undertake 'to protect effectively the right of the worker to earn his living in an occupationfreely entered upon'. The European Committee of Social Rights, former Committee of Independent Experts,monitoring body of the ESC, has interpreted the phrase 'freely entered upon' as prohibiting forced labour. In

this context, the Committee found that 'the coercion of any worker to carry out work against his wishes, andwithout his freely expressed consent, is contrary to the Charter. The same applied to the coercion of anyworker to carry out work he had previously freely agreed to, but which he subsequently no longer wanted tocarry out'.

29 Issues arising out of domestic labour in particular have been examined in the Reporting Proce-

dure under the ESC in the context of Article 3 on the Right to Safe and Healthy Working Conditions,30

Article7 on the Right of Children and Young Persons to Protection

31 and Article 8 on the Right of Employed Women

to Protection.32

The long list international and regional instruments that can be applicable to domestic labour did not solvethe problems domestic workers face. In spite of the fact that both the ILO and the Council of Europe, in vari-ous recent documents, appeared determined to deal with the situation, and despite increasing awarenessthat domestic labour worldwide is certainly not unproblematic and that it requires regulation, things remainedunchanged. National authorities took no effective measures to address the phenomenon. Domestic workers,in turn, did not have the opportunity to have their voice heard and had no avenue of redress before the com-petent organs, as there is no right of individual petition before the ILO or the European Committee of SocialRights. The failure to take concrete steps at national level, as a result, raised questions over the relevanceand adequacy of legal regulation and international supervision when it comes to the most difficult issues.

33

4. Domestic labour and the ECHR

A response to the pressing problems of domestic labour came from a body that one would describe as arather unlikely forum when it comes to the supervision of labour rights. This development sheds new light onthe interaction between human rights and international labour law. A decision of the European Court of Hu-


4/15

man Rights showed the potential of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) to address violationsof labour rights. It highlighted that, apart from freedom of association and other Convention rights that mayby implication affect specific aspects of the employment sphere, there is one provision, which directly con-cerns the employment relationship and deals comprehensively with a potentially unfair outcome. Article 4 ofthe Convention shows that in the event that an employment relation leads to grave abuse, forced or compul-

sory labour, slavery or servitude, individuals have a right to be heard and States have a duty to guard againstthis outcome, protecting the weaker and most vulnerable party from exploitation. Article 4 provides:

(1) No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

(2) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

(3) For the purpose of this article the term 'forced or compulsory labour' shall not include:

(a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according tothe provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;

(b) any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countrieswhere they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;

(c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-beingof the community;

(d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.

This provision shows that such is the inequality of bargaining power and so significant the potential for abusethat a state might have to intervene in the final result of the individual or collective bargaining process. Yetthe exact scope of Article 4 has been relatively unexplored, as it is one of the ECHR provisions that have notplaced a heavy burden on the already overloaded European Court of Human Rights. While until recently onewould say that the prohibition of slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour is not relevant in contempo-rary Europe, in July 2005 this assumption was found to be untrue. The ECtHR decided a case, which shed

light on the contemporary relevance of Article 4 in Europe, and which emphasised the significance of thecharacter of the ECHR as a living instrument and its increasing relevance to workplace rights.

4.1 Siliadin v France

The unanimous decision of the Court in Siliadin v France34

addressed contemporary forms of slavery inEurope and highlighted the obligation of States to protect individuals from an unfair outcome in the employ-ment relation under the ECHR. The applicant, a domestic worker, claimed that under French criminal law,she was not afforded adequate and effective protection against slavery, servitude, forced and compulsorylabour, contrary to Article 4 of the ECHR.

Siwa-Akofa Siliadin is a Togolese national, born in 1978. In 1994 her father agreed with Ms D that she wouldtake her to Paris. The agreement was that the applicant would do housework for Ms D until she paid back

the amount of her air-ticket, and Ms D would arrange for her education and the regularisation of her immigra-tion status. Instead, Ms D withheld the applicant's passport and kept her as an unpaid house servant.

Later in 1994, Ms D 'lent' the applicant to Mr and Mrs B, who had three young children. While with Mr andMrs B, Siliadin became a general housemaid to the couple. She would work seven days a week without aday off. She would wake up at 7.30 every morning, take care of the children and the baby throughout theday, and do all house cleaning. At night, she would prepare dinner and then go to bed at 10.30. She had tosleep on a mattress on the floor of the children's room. She had to wear old clothes. She would work around15 hours per day and would also have to clean Mr B's office. Siliadin was never paid for her work. She onlyreceived one or two 500 FF notes (76,22 euros).


5/15

At some point, the applicant got hold of her passport, and spoke of her situation to a neighbour. In 1998, thepolice entered the house of Mr and Mrs B. The couple was accused of abusing Siliadin's vulnerable and de-pendent status, having her do unpaid or insufficiently paid work for them, forcing her to work and live in in-human conditions, and accepting her with no work permit. According to Article 225-13 of the French CriminalCode, it is prohibited to have someone at your service without pay or with pay that is clearly disproportionate

to services provided. Article 225-14, in turn, states that it is prohibited to subject someone to working condi-tions incompatible with human dignity, abusing that person's vulnerable or dependent situation. The penaltyfor both crimes is two years imprisonment.

In 1999 Mr and Mrs B were convicted at first instance to 12 months imprisonment for having the applicant dounpaid work for them. As for her working conditions, the Court held that they were not incompatible with hu-man dignity. In 2000 the Paris Court of Appeal acquitted Mr and Mrs B of the offence, because Siliadin hadsome autonomy. The Public Prosecutor did not appeal against the decision and the applicant appealed onpoints of law in relation to her civil claim. The case was referred to the Court of Cassation, which quashedparts of the judgment, and referred the case to the Versailles Court of Appeal. In 2003 the Versailles Court of Appeal ordered Mr and Mrs B to pay Siliadin damages for her unpaid work but held that her working condi-tions were not incompatible with human dignity.

35 The Paris employment tribunal awarded her an amount for

salary arrears, notice period and holiday leave.

Before the ECtHR, the applicant maintained that France was in breach of Article 4 of the ECHR, for not hav-ing effective criminal legislation to combat slavery, servitude, and forced or compulsory labour.

The Court first examined whether Article 4 was applicable in the present instance. At first glance, the allegedviolation of the Convention here involves private parties with no direct involvement by French authorities.States, however, may have positive obligations under the Convention. State responsibility, therefore, may beengaged under the ECHR, because of an omission to set up the necessary system that will safeguard theConvention's guaranties.

Turning to the alleged breach of Article 4, the Court repeated the words of the Parliamentary Assembly,stressing that 'although slavery was officially abolished more than 150 years ago, "domestic slavery" persistsin Europe and concerns thousands of persons, the majority of whom are women'.

36 The absolute, fundamen-

tal character of Article 4, which cannot be limited or derogated from, shows that it may require criminalisationof any conduct that violates it.

Does Siliadin's situation fall within the ambit of Article 4, however? ILO treaties, the Court emphasised, bindalmost all ECHR member States. The 1930 Convention on Forced Labour is of particular relevance when itcomes to the interpretation of Article 4, as there is striking similarity between Article 4, Paragraph 3 ECHR,and Article 2 Paragraph 2 of ILO Convention 29. According to Paragraph 1 of the same provision, forced orcompulsory labour is 'all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penaltyand for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily'. In Van der Mussele, accordingly, the Courtheld that forced or compulsory labour is work 'exacted ... under the menace of any penalty' and also per-formed against the will of the person concerned, that is work for which he 'has not offered himself voluntar-ily'.

37 The first condition, the Court went on to explain, is satisfied. While the applicant did not face a penalty,

she faced an equivalent threat. Being an illegal immigrant, she feared that she would be stopped by the po-lice, while Mr and Mrs B maintained this fear, and encouraged her to hope that her status would be legalised. As for the second condition of forced labour, namely whether her work was voluntary, the Court stressed thatSiliadin had no other option. She had, therefore, been subject to forced labour at the least.

38

Had she been subjected to slavery or servitude , though? Mr and Mrs B did not exercise a right of ownershipupon the applicant, reducing her to the status of an object. She was not a 'slave', therefore. Servitude, inturn, involves a particularly grave restriction of one's liberty, and entails not only an obligation to provideone's services, but also to live with one's 'employer', and be unable to change this.

39 If the applicant had left

Mr and Mrs B, she would have had nowhere else to go and no other place to stay. She was totally at themercy of the couple, having no passport and being an irregular migrant. She had no freedom of movementand no free time. Further, she had no hope that her situation would improve, as she was not sent to school.She had, accordingly, been subjected to servitude.

40 Was protection afforded by French legislation adequate

for the purposes of Article 4 of the ECHR? The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, the Court noted,were much more limited than Article 4, as there was no clear prohibition of slavery and servitude as such in


6/15

French criminal law. The provisions were open to many different interpretations. They were neither concretenor effective, although one of the fundamental values of democratic societies was at stake. France was,therefore, in breach of the ECHR.

4.2 The ECHR and International Labour Standards

A number of novel and remarkable aspects of the complex interaction between labour and human rights lawemerged from Siliadin. Two points require further analysis. First, it is crucial to assess the relation betweenthe ECHR, a traditional civil and political rights instrument, and the relevant documents of the ILO. Second, itis necessary to consider the conditions under which an employment relation as a whole may raise issuesunder Article 4 of the ECHR.

Labour lawyers have traditionally regarded with scepticism the interaction between labour law and humanrights.

41 Past ECHR case law was in part to blame for this stance. Perhaps the most striking example of the

unwillingness of the European Commission on Human Rights (EComHR) to promote coherence in the inter-national protection of labour rights was the 1987 Council of Civil Services Unions,

42 also known as GCHQ. In

GCHQ, while the ILO Committee of Freedom of Association found that the total ban of union membershipviolated the right to associate under Article 2 of Convention 87,

43 the EComHR, having to examine the UK's

compliance with Article 11 ECHR, relied upon the provision's second paragraph, which permits restrictionson the right to associate when there are national security issues involved. Article 11 Paragraph 2 has nocounterpart in ILO Convention 87 and the EComHR declared the application inadmissible, instead of consid-ering whether the UK Government could have imposed a lesser restriction of the right to associate, espe-cially in view of the ILO's findings. Labour lawyers criticised severely the stance that the Commission optedto follow.

44

While there have been examples where the Court and the Commission were less hostile towards the ILO,45

itwas not until 2002 that the ECtHR took a decisive step in the opposite direction. In Wilson, contrary to itspast practice, the ECtHR referred to ILO materials as relevant, and added that the Committee of Independ-ent Experts (renamed to European Committee on Social Rights) and the ILO's Committee on Freedom of Association had criticised the UK legislation under scrutiny, in order to maximise rather than restrict the Con-vention's coverage.

46 Wilson showed, it has therefore been argued, 'how social rights can have indirect legal

effect by influencing the interpretation of legally enforceable rights'.47

In 2004, in Sidabras, following a similar

approach, the ECtHR stated: 'having regard in particular to the notions currently prevailing in democraticstates, the Court considers that a far-reaching ban on taking up private-sector employment does affect "pri-vate life". It attaches particular weight in this respect to the text of Article 1 ß2 of the European Social Charterand the interpretation given by the European Committee of Social Rights ... and to the texts adopted by theILO'.

48

In Siliadin, affording ILO materials indirect legal effect was particularly important for two reasons. First, itshed light on the application of Article 4 between private parties and, second, it assisted in the determinationof the material scope of the provision. Does the prohibition of slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labourimpose a positive duty on States to intervene in a relationship between private individuals? While interna-tional human rights law initially concerned State action and did not involve relations between individuals, theCourt's decision in Siliadin reaffirms that a State may have positive obligations to regulate the private em-ployment relation. States' duty to intervene in private relations may have various justifications: on the onehand, it may stem from the fundamental character of Convention rights, which, arguably, becomes even

more significant when it comes to non-derogable provisions,49 and on the other, from the clear unequalstatus of individuals in certain private relations. A state that does not criminalise murder or torture would notbe in compliance with international human rights law, nor would a state, which does not investigate forceddisappearances,

50 according to well-established case law. The fact that a specific action is not directly im-

putable to the authorities does not mean that it cannot impose obligations under human rights law.

Siliadin was the first case where the Court examined the horizontal effect of the Convention in the context of Article 4. References to ILO instruments, here, carried special weight in the determination of States' positiveobligations. More specifically, the Court cited Article 4 of the 1930 Forced Labour Convention, which hasbeen ratified by France and which provides as follows: '(1) The competent authority shall not impose or per-


7/15

mit the imposition of forced or compulsory labour for the benefit of private individuals, companies or associa-tions". Making further mention of the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery and to theInternational Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Court held that 'limiting compliance with Article 4 ofthe Convention only to direct action by the State authorities would be inconsistent with the international in-struments specifically concerned with the issue and would amount to rendering it ineffective'.

51

The second reason why reference to ILO instruments carried special significance in Siliadin is that it played acentral role in the examination of the material scope of Article 4, which is one of the least invoked provisionsof the otherwise widely explored ECHR. Although there is by now a wealth of case law on most ECHR arti-cles, the Court and the Commission have had few opportunities to determine the scope of the prohibition ofslavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour. While, in accordance to its common practice, the lack ofspecific national legislation on domestic servitude that would serve as evidence of consensus in memberstates could have made the ECtHR have recourse to its well-established 'margin of appreciation' doctrine,

52

in Siliadin it did not do so. The Court, on the contrary, criticised the lack of special regulation, and went on toexamine whether Article 4 was breached. As there was neither much jurisprudence to build upon, nor muchnational practice to take into account, it decided to rely heavily upon relevant materials of the ILO and otherCouncil of Europe and international instruments. It made mention of the 1930 ILO Convention on Forced La-bour, the 1926 Slavery Convention and the 1956 Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, which have all beenratified by France.

53 It was with the aid of these instruments that the Court reached its decision.

References by international human rights bodies to ILO standards are not unique in the case law of theECtHR. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its Advisory Opinion on the Juridical Condition andRights of the Undocumented Migrants

54 held that 'undocumented migrant workers who are in a situation of

vulnerability and discrimination with regard to national workers, possess the same labour rights as those thatcorrespond to other workers of the State of employment, and the latter must take all necessary measures toensure that such rights are recognised and guaranteed in practice. Workers, as possessors of labour rights,must have the appropriate means to exercise them'.

55 To reach its decision the Court made several refer-

ences to ILO instruments and took into account the 1998 ILO Declaration,56

relevant ILO Conventions,57

andnumerous other related ILO instruments and studies.

58

The central importance of the interaction between international supervisory mechanisms lies in that it pro-motes what Helfer and Slaughter described as a crucial factor of effective supranational adjudication. Judicialcross-fertilisation and dialogue,

59 described as '[e]ach tribunal's willingness to refer to the other's rulings' and

which 'has interesting implications for enhancing their influence and effectiveness generally'

60

can only beseen as a welcome development of the last few years in the case law of international bodies. It certainly en-hances both the scope of the ECHR and the protection of labour rights as human rights at supranationallevel, in general.

The relation between international labour law, therefore, and international human rights law should no longerbe regarded as competitive.

61 The overlap and convergence in the protection of labour rights appears to be

highly beneficial to the ILO, a usual critique of which is that its soft law procedures are ineffective. TheECtHR and the Inter-American Court in their recent jurisprudence show increasing deference to the ILO, notby encouraging applicants to turn to the specialist organisation, but by utilising ILO expertise in order to clar-ify the scope of human rights treaties. This is true both in respect of ILO Conventions and Recommenda-tions, and when it comes to decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee ofExperts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. This practice affords a new, binding char-acter to international labour rights, making them potentially justiciable through individual petition procedures,

which do not exist in the context of the ILO itself.

4.3 The ECHR and Forced Labour

Individual complaints brought before the ECtHR under Article 4 ECHR are few. In the past, the Court hadhad to look at various state-imposed obligations, which allegedly breached the provision. Examining thesecomplaints, the European Commission on Human Rights (EComHR) and the ECtHR explored the materialscope of the provision. In Van Droogenbroeck ,

62 for instance, the applicant complained that work he had to

do while in detention was in violation of Article 4 of the Convention. The EComHR, discussing the notion of


8/15

servitude, held that 'in addition to the obligation to provide another with certain services, the concept of servi-tude includes the obligation on the part of the 'serf' to live on another's property and the impossibility ofchanging his condition'.

63 Work that one has to perform while in prison and which aims at rehabilitation falls

within the scope of Article 4(3)(a) and does not constitute a breach of the Convention.64

Military service inwhich someone has entered as a volunteer, moreover, was found to be in accordance with Article 4.

65 On

forced or compulsory labour, the Commission has had to look at issues such as the duty imposed on dentiststo work for up to two years for a public dental service,66

the requirement imposed on barristers to representpoor clients under the threat of severe punishment and without adequate compensation,

67 and the obligation

to seek and take a job as a prerequisite to unemployment benefits.68

Two elements were found to be crucialfor the notion of forced or compulsory labour, according to the relevant decisions. First, work should be per-formed by the worker against his or her will and, second, that this work is unjust or oppressive.

69 None of the

above allegations was held to amount to a breach of the prohibition under Article 4. In Ould Barar v Swe-den,

70 finally, the Court had to consider whether returning the applicant to Mauritania, where he might face

slavery, could give rise to a violation of the Convention. The Court, re-iterating its well established case lawon extraditions and expulsions, held that in principle this may be true. However, in the instant case, the com-plaint was not substantiated.

Siliadin sheds new light to Article 4 of the ECHR and the prohibition of forced labour. There are two issuesthat require further consideration in this context. A first question to address is whether Siliadin was indeed

particularly prone to abusive labour conditions. Second, one needs to assess whether her decision to liveand work in such conditions was a matter of free choice or whether it resulted from external coercion, a no-tion central in past jurisprudence.

In a 2001 Human Rights Watch Report entitled 'Hidden in the Home: Abuse of Domestic Workers with Spe-cial Visas in the United States' the situation was described as follows:

[domestic workers] start feeling overwhelmed by their fears ... They feel trapped, but ambivalent about leav-ing, talking and seeking help. After feeling betrayed by their employers ... it is hard for them to trust strang-ers. The social isolation they have been subjected to has made them even more distrustful and vulnerable.Their self-esteem suffers considerable damage after prolonged periods of maltreatment, abuse and humilia-tion. They feel inadequate, powerless and worthless.

71

Siliadin was in such a weak position. An illegal migrant and a domestic worker, isolated from French society,she appeared to have no prospect of seeing her situation improve. The confiscation of her passport was only

one of the factors that determined the Court's decision, while her living and working conditions carried signifi-cant weight in the determination of the voluntary character of her work, as they impeded her social integra-tion and flourishing and condemned her to exclusion and isolation.

72 Is it only the status of the applicant as a

minor at the time that brought her within the scope of the Convention? Or can any employment relation, fromits establishment and all the way until its solution, fall within the ambit of the ECHR? While the Court didmention that the applicant was a minor, it was only one of the factors that it considered. Even if Siliadin wereover eighteen when she was taken to France and kept as a domestic worker, it seems that the Court wouldnot have found otherwise. It is the situation of an individual who comes from a foreign country having no le-gal documents, who is desperately trying to escape extreme poverty and has to work long hours in inhumanconditions that carried most weight in the Court's finding.

While work is central for an individual's sense of fulfillment and self-respect, a further function of one's job isthe sense of belonging and social inclusion that it inspires. Isolation, often deliberately created, is one of theprimary effects that domestic servitude has upon individuals. 'The physical and emotional isolation in whichthe victims [of domestic slavery] find themselves', the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe un-derlined, 'coupled with fear of the outside world, causes psychological problems which persist after their re-lease and leave them completely disoriented'.

73 This situation runs contrary to the evolving object and pur-

pose of both the Convention and numerous other initiatives of the Council of Europe,74

and was determina-tive in the Court's conclusion.

Consent, it appears from ECHR case-law, cannot legitimise slavery or servitude.75

When it comes to forcedor compulsory labour, though, things are less clear-cut.

76 If someone 'willingly' subjects herself to very harsh

working conditions, then one might argue that it is not forced labour and the authorities have neither an obli-gation nor a right to intervene. In the Vagrancy cases in the context of Article 5, however, the Court stressed


9/15

that 'the right to liberty is too important in a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention for aperson to lose the benefit of protection for the single reason that he gives himself up to be taken into deten-tion. Detention,' the Court went on to explain, 'might violate Article 5 (Article 5) even although the personconcerned might have agreed to it. When the matter is one which concerns ordre public within the Council ofEurope, a scrupulous supervision by the organs of the Convention of all measures capable of violating the

rights and freedoms which it guarantees is necessary in every case'.

77

Article 4, like Article 5 of the ECHR,involves such a fundamental aspect of one's liberty, making it hard to see how consent might carry significantweight in the Court's finding.

Even if the ECtHR held that an individual can consent to such living and working conditions, it should thentake a step further, and examine whether there is clear choice and true consent or whether the agreement isactually coerced. Was Siliadin's decision to work in such conditions free and voluntary, as some might argue,or was it imposed or significantly influenced by external factors? Did she have the opportunity to escape andtake control of her life? Seba, Bales observed, 'is baffled by the idea of "choice". Her volunteer family tries tohelp her make choices, but she still can't grasp it'.

78 Having lived for a long time in conditions of oppression

and exploitation, she is unable to think and decide clearly. Even if she were able, however, to think and de-cide clearly, her options would be extremely limited. 'If we value freedom in each particular case because ofthe importance of choice and of not being constrained in the choices one makes,' J. Waldron argued discuss-ing homelessness and freedom, 'then that value ought to direct some attention to how many choices a per-

son has left after each constraint has been exercised.'79

Here the options Siliadin had were in fact two. Shewas 'free' either to stay with Mr and Mrs B, work in inhuman conditions and hope that her immigration statuswould at some point be regularised, or to leave them. Should she decide to leave them, she would not befree to stay in the country and find a better job. She would most probably face detention and deportation. Inher home country, then, she would have to live in conditions of inescapable extreme poverty. It is highlyquestionable, therefore, how free her choice was, as '[e]xploitation, forced labour, and appalling workingconditions', according to a recent study, 'can [...] be perceived as the only viable option for the migrantworker. To appeal to the authorities or another type of assistance would be to eliminate this only option'.

80

'Labour is not a commodity', echoes the central principle of the ILO, enshrined in its Constitution. The situa-tion of domestic workers adds a further tragic dimension to this call. In an employment relation in generalmany fundamental aspects of one's well-being may be affected and give rise to issues under the Convention.Siliadin, however, faced additional hardship. She had no privacy, as she was made to sleep with the family'schildren, and had almost no free time. She was not allowed to communicate freely with the outside world,

having an illegal status in the country and living in fear, and she was subjected to inhuman treatment. Keep-ing someone in servitude and forcing her to work in such conditions is a negation of all aspects of person-hood and human dignity, core values of the ECHR. That individual's complete isolation and social exclusionis unavoidable, and her chance to change her life hopeless. It is not only the domestic worker's labour that iscommodified, but her existence as a whole.

81

It is this extreme injustice and this negation of Siliadin's dignity that compelled the Court to consider her em-ployment relationship as a whole, and to find that it constituted forced labour. What the Court's conclusion inSiliadin finally demonstrates, then, is not some formalistic insistence that the exact wording of the Conven-tion be included in French criminal legislation. It is more than mere conceptualism. It reflects the realisationthat the gravity of such acts and the harm that they provoke to workers demand positive and effective stateaction and protection, which was not afforded by French criminal law at the time.

5. Conclusion

Considering the relevance of Article 4 for the UK before Siliadin, as with the rest of Council of Europe mem-ber states, most would be inclined to say that slavery, servitude, forced labour, are all practices which haveby now been eliminated. To what extent is this true? Are there any forced labour practices in the UK, and ifso, is UK legislation in compliance with ECHR standards? The UK Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in casessimilar to Ould Barar

82 has had to examine whether returning individuals to their home country, where they

would face a risk of having to work in conditions of forced labour or slavery, could be contrary to ECHR Arti-cles 3 and 4.

83 The decision of the ECtHR in Siliadin, however, makes us reconsider the contemporary rele-


10/15

vance of forced labour, not only when it comes to extradition and expulsion, but also with respect to suchallegations within UK territory.

Sadly, both from Council of Europe documents and from domestic sources, it appears that modern forms ofslavery are not an unknown phenomenon in the UK.

84 The Study on 'Forced Labour and Migration to the UK',

prepared by the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society in collaboration with the Trade Union Congress and

published in 2005, illustrated the issues, both with reference to practice and legislation, setting out numerousexamples of coercive labour practices.

85 Immigration adjudicators, moreover, have heard complaints under

Article 4 by women who have been trafficked to the UK and worked as domestic servants.86

The UK, like France, has ratified the key ILO Conventions on forced labour. Moreover, there is the 19th cen-tury Slave Trade Act, which prohibits slavery and bonded labour. 'Legal remedies that enforce prohibitionagainst ownership are ineffective, since enslavement and control are achieved without ownership',

87 Bales

argued. Indeed, the ECtHR in Siliadin, held that the applicant was not a slave, as no right of ownership wasexercised upon her. In a similar fashion, Lord Giddens in a parliamentary debate contended that contempo-rary forms of abuse differ and should be distinguished from the traditional notion of slavery.

88

Recently adopted legislation that is of relevance here is, first, the Asylum and Immigration Act and, second,the Gangmasters Licensing Act. The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 criminal-ises forced labour when it is connected to trafficking. Section 4 of the Act, entitled 'Trafficking people for ex-

ploitation', provides that a person commits an offence if he arranges or facilitates the arrival or travel withinthe UK or the departure from the country of an individual, aiming at the exploitation of that person within oroutside the UK. A person is exploited according to the Act 'if (and only if)- (a) he is the victim of behaviourthat contravenes Article 4 of the Human Rights Convention (slavery and forced labour) ... or (c) he is subjected to threats, force or deception designed to induce him--(i) to provide services of any kind, (ii) to provideanother person with benefits of any kind, or (iii) to enable another person to acquire benefits of any kind'.

The Gangmasters Licensing Act 2004 sets up a licensing system for individuals, who supply or use workersin agricultural work, harvesting fish and performing other agricultural, processing and packaging activities.The Act requires everyone that either employs people for such activities, or supplies workers to others, to belicensed, and makes such activities an offence, if they are performed without a license.

Is UK legislation adequate? Does it satisfy ECHR standards? Not necessarily. This is so because, while aperson who has been trafficked has a route of redress, an irregular migrant who has not been trafficked and

is subject to forced labour practices, will remain unprotected.

89

Trafficked migrants, it is true, are subject to ahigh risk of exploitative working conditions. This is not to say, though, that they are the only group of indi-viduals who may be abused. Moreover, it is not only the trafficker who may abuse them. The Immigration Act, it has therefore been argued, confuses illegal immigration and trafficking, and presents forced labour asan immigration issue solely.

90 As for the Gangmasters Act, Lord Brett pointed out that '[i]t will put an end to

the exploitation of workers in one industry, but the truth is that it needs to be expanded. Major human rightsabuses take place in the construction industry with the often coerced importation of labour from eastern andcentral Europe'.

91

The assumption that slavery-like practices have been eliminated is far from real in the 21st century. The de-cision of the European Court of Human Rights in Siliadin v France raises awareness of one of the darkestsides of the protection of labour and human rights in Europe. Domestic slavery is something more than la-bour as a commodity, for it is each single aspect of the domestic worker's life that may be commodified andabused. This extreme injustice led the ECtHR to impose a duty upon Council of Europe member states to

have in place effective criminal legislation that will punish such appalling working conditions, which werethought to have vanished. Of course, when it comes to domestic slavery, having legislation in place is not apanacea. This is so because there are particular difficulties in its implementation, more than in any other pri-vate sector relationship. Migrant domestic workers will not easily leave the household. Their fear will oftenimpede them from going to the authorities, making their situation visible and aiding the effective eliminationof the crime. The adoption of effective legislation, however, is a decisive first step and rebuilds confidencethat the protection of labour and human rights in Europe, even in the most difficult cases, is not 'theoreticaland illusory' but 'practical and effective'.

92


11/15

1 In memory of Venetia Newitt Moschovakou.

2 I am grateful to the Journal Editor, to Hugh Collins, George Letsas and an anonymous referee for valuable comments on

this paper. Many thanks are also due to Conor Gearty, Steven Greer, Stuart Lakin, Gerry Simpson, Ann Singleton and ErikaSzyszczak.

3 See the Report of the International Labour Organisation Commission of Inquiry appointed to examine the observance of the

1930 Forced Labour Convention, 'Forced Labour in Myanmar (Burma)', 2 July 1998. See also, Amnesty International Report,

'Human Rights for Human Dignity: A Primer on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' (2005) 18.

4 See, among others, the detailed 2005 ILO Report of the Director General of the ILO 'A Global Alliance Against Forced La-

bour'. See also the Human Rights Watch Report, 'Help Wanted: Abuses Against Female Migrant Domestic Workers in Indone-

sia and Malaysia' (2004).

5 K. Bales, Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy (University of California Press, 1999) 1-2.

6 Ibid at 3. See also B. Anderson, Doing the Dirty Work? The Global Politics of Domestic Labour (Zed Books, 2000) chs 3-5.

7 Data based on a sample of 1,000 domestic workers, available athttp://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kalayaan/home.htm and included in the Council of Europe's Report of the Commit-tee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Doc 9102, 17 May 2001, para 12.

8 Report available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/usadom/usadom0501.pdf. See also J.M. Zambeka 'America's Dirty

Work: Migrant Maids and Modern-Day Slavery' in Ehrenreich, Hochschild (eds), Global Woman, (Metropolitan Books, 2003)142; and 'Freedom Denied: Forced Labour in California', Human Rights Centre, University of California Berkeley (February2005) available at http://www.hrcberkeley.org/download/freedomdenied.pdf.

9 ILO, 'Making Domestic Work Visible: The Case for Specific Regulation', available at

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/ifpdial/publ/infocus/domestic/ and 'Helping Hands or Shackled Lives? UnderstandingChild Domestic Labour and Responses to it', International Labour Office (2004).

10 ILO, Official Bulletin, Vol XLVIII(3), (July 1965) Supplement I, pp. 20-1.

11 'The Employment and Conditions of Domestic Workers in Private Households: An ILO Survey' (1970) 102 International La-

bour Review 391 at 400.

12 A. Blackett, 'Making Domestic Work Visible: The Case for Specific Regulation', available at

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/ifpdial/publ/infocus/domestic/.

13 Report available at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/declar is/DECLARATIONWEB.DOWNLOAD_BLOB?Var_DocumentID=1578, pp

29-30.

14 Report available at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/declar is/DECLARATIONWEB.DOWNLOAD_BLOB?Var_DocumentID=5059.

15 2001 Report, pp 29-31.

16 2005 Report, pp 50-1.

17 Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, Fact Sheet No 14, 'Contemporary Forms of Slavery'.

18 Subcommission Resolution 1997/22, paras 34-5.


12/15

19 See, for instance, Report of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, E/CN4/Sub2/2005/34, paras 25-7 and

E/CN4/Sub2/2004/36, para 51.

20 On the Special Action Programme, see R. Plant and C. O'Reilly, 'The ILO Special Action Programme to Combat Forced

Labour' (2003) 142 International Labour Review 73.

21 See Discussion Paper on the Protection of Domestic Workers Against the Threat of Forced Labour and Trafficking, pre-

pared for Anti-Slavery International by Lin Chew in cooperation with the ILO's Special Action Programme to Combat Forced La-

bour (January 2003) available at http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/resources/Anti-Slavery%20domestic%20workers%20discussion%20paper%200203.pdf.

22 Recommendation 1523(2001), para 9.

23 Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly Report, Doc 10144, 'Domestic Slavery: Servitude, Au Pairs and Mail-Order

Brides' (2004) para 1. See final text of Recommendation 1663 (2004).

24 For an overview see J.M. Ramirez-Machado Domestic Work, Conditions of Work and Employment: A Legal Perspective,

Conditions of Work and Employment Series No 7 (ILO, 2003).

25 Article 2(1).

26 Article 25.

27 Article 4(1).

28 Article 3(a).

29 Conclusions III, p 5, cited by L. Samuel in Fundamental Social Rights: Case Law of the European Social Charter , 2nd ed

(Council of Europe Publishing, 2002) p 18.

30

See, for instance, Conclusions XIII-4, on Belgium, p 342 cited by Samuel, above, n 27, p 66.

31 See Samuel, pp 173, 176.

32 Ibid, p 205 ff.

33 Bales, above, n 3, pp 32-3.

34 Siliadin v France, App No 73316/01, Judgment of 26 July 2005 ([2005] ECHR 545: available only in French).

35 Siliadin, para 44.


37 Van der Mussele v Belgium, App No. 8919/80 , Judgment of 23 November 1983, para 32.


39 From the Commission's decision in Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium, App No 7906/77 , Report of 9 July 1980, Series B, No

44, cited in Siliadin, para 123.


13/15


41 On this see S. Fredman, 'Scepticism under Scrutiny: Labour Law and Human Rights' in Campbell, Ewing, Tomkins (eds),

Sceptical Essays on Human Rights (OUP, 2001) p 197.

42 Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v UK, App No 11603/85 , Admissibility decision of 20 January 1987.

43 ILO Convention 87, Article 2: 'Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and,

subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisa-

tion'.

44 See, among others, G. Morris, 'Freedom of Association and the Interests of the State' in Ewing, Gearty and Hepple (eds),

Human Rights and Labour Law (Mansell, 1994) p 29; and K.D. Ewing 'Freedom of Association and Trade Union Rights' in Har-

ris and Joseph (eds), The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and United Kingdom Law (Clarendon Press,1995) p 465.

45 See for instance X v Ireland, App No 4125/69, Admissibility decision of 1 February 1971, Cheall v UK, App No 15550/83,

Admissibility decision of 13 May 1985, (1985) 28 YB of the ECHR 105 at 111. On this see T. Novitz, International and EuropeanProtection of the Right to Strike (OUP, 2003) p 224 ff. See also Van der Mussele, above, n 35, para 32 ff.

46 Wilson and Others v UK, App Nos 30668/96, 30671/76, 30678/96 , Judgment of 2 July 2002. On this see K.D. Ewing, 'The

Implications of Wilson and Palmer' (2003) 32 ILJ 1 at 16.

47 H. Collins, Employment Law (OUP, 2003) p 235.

48 Sidabras and Dziautas v Lithuania, App Nos 55480/00 and 59330/00 , Judgment of 27 July 2004, para 47. On this decision

and the 'integrated approach' to the interpretation of the EHCR, see V. Mantouvalou, 'Work and Private Life: Sidabras and

Dziautas v Lithuania' (2005) 30 European Law Review 573.

49 The non-derogable provisions of the ECHR are set down in Article 15.

50 See the landmark Velasquez-Rodriguez v Honduras, Judgment of 29 July 1998, Inter-American Court of Human Rights(Ser C) No 4 (1988) para 172. On article 8 and positive action see X and Y v Netherlands, App No 8978/80 , judgment of 26

March 1985, para 23.

51 Siliadin, para 89. This duty to intervene in relations between individuals in the context of employment was also recognised

in Wilson, above, n 44, para 41.

52 For a criticism of the idea of consensus see G. Letsas, 'The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR'

(2004) 15 European Journal of International Law 279.

53 Siliadin, paras 51, 85-6.

54 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, 17 September 2003, Series A, No 18(2003). In No-

vember 2003, the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association found in Case No 2227 that the Supreme Court's decision inHoffman does not protect adequately undocumented workers' right to organise.

55 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, para 160.

56 At http://www.corteidh.or.cr/serieapdf_ing/seriea_18_ing.pdf p 25.

57 Ibid at 36.


14/15

58 See, for instance, p 62, p 95 n 33.

59 L. Helfer, and A-M. Slaughter, 'Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication' (1997-1998) 107Yale Law Jour-

nal 273 at 323.

60 Ibid at 325.

61 On the importance of the ILO as a standard-setting body, and its relation with other supranational bodies and organisations

see P. O'Higgins, 'The Interaction of the ILO, the Council of Europe and European Union Labour Standards' in Hepple (ed), So-

cial and Labour Rights in a Global Context , (Cambridge University Press, 2002) p 55 ff. On the potential relation between theILO and human rights treaties see also C.W. Jenks, 'Human Rights, Social Justice and Peace' in International Protection ofHuman Rights (Interscience, 1968) p 227 at 248 ff. On the ILO and the Council of Europe in particular see 254-5.

62 Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium, above, n 37, p 12.

63 Ibid, p 30.

64 De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium, App Nos 2832/66, 2835/66, 2899/66 , Judgment of 18 June 1971, para 90.

65 W, X, Y and Z v UK, App Nos 3435-3438/67 , Admissibility Decision of 19 July 1968.

66 Iversen v Norway, App No 1468/62 , Admissibility Decision of 17 December 1963, Yearbook, Vol VII, p 278.

67 X v Germany, App No 4673/70 , Admissibility Decision of 1 April 1974. See also Van der Mussele, above, n 35.

68 Talmon v Netherlands, App No 30300/96 , Admissibility Decision of 26 February 1997.

69 See, among others, Iversen, p 328.

70

See Ould Barar v Sweden, App No 42367/98 , Admissibility Decision of 19 January 1999.

71 As described by the psychotherapist Xiomara Salgado, Human Rights Watch Report available at

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/usadom/usadom0501.pdf, p 21.


73 Recommendation 1523 (2001), para 7.

74 See, for instance, the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level, ETS 144, and its Explana-

tory Report that emphasises the importance of foreigners' economic and cultural participation. See also the numerous initiatives

on Social Cohesion at http://www.coe.int/T/E/Social_cohesion/.

75 W, X, Y and Z v UK, App Nos 3435-3438/67 , Admissibility decision of 19 July 1968. See generally C. Ovey and R.C.A.

White, Jacobs & White: The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th edn (OUP, 2006) pp 120-1.

76 Van der Mussele, above, n 35, para 34.

77 De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium, App Nos 2832/66, 2835/66, 2899/66 , Judgment of 18 June 1971, para 65.

78 Bales, above, n 3, p 3.


15/15

79 J. Waldron, 'Homelessness and the Issue of Freedom' in Liberal Rights (Cambridge University Press, 1993) p 309 at 330.

80 B. Anderson and B. Rogaly, 'Forced Labour and Migration to the UK' available at http://www.tuc.org.uk/international/tuc-

9317-f0.pdf, p 53.

81 Anderson, Doing the Dirty Work?, above, n 4, p 121.

82 Above, n 68.

83 See, for instance, Immigration Appeal Tribunal, DJ v SSHD, Somalia CG [2005] UKIAT 00089, para 43 ff, and YS and HA

v SSHD, Somalia CG [2005] UKIAT 00088, para 54.

84 Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Doc 9102, Report to the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and

Men, 17 May 2001, paras 12-14, and Doc 9136, 25 June 2001, paras 20-1, B. Herzfeld, 'Everywhere In Chains', Guardian, 23

August 2004, A. Travis, 'Blunkett Law Will Free UK's Domestic Slaves', Guardian, 11 November 2004, O. Bowcott, 'Gang Mas-ter Convicted Over "Slave" Workers', Guardian, 4 February 2005. See also B. Anderson, Britain's Secret Slaves: An Investiga-tion into the Plight of Overseas Domestic Workers (Anti-Slavery International Human Rights Series No 5, 1993).

85 Above, n 78, p 36 ff.

86 Ibid, p 21, n 28.

87 Bales, above, n 3, p 32.

88 See HL Debs, 7 July 2005, Col 747.

89 I wish to thank Chaloka Beyani for a clarification on this point.

90 Anderson, Rogaly, above, n 78, pp 8-9.

91 HL Debs, 7 July 2005, Col 766.

92 See, among other authorities, Airey v Ireland, App. No. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979, para 24.

human rights domestic workers

Documents